The next amendment, which is in the name of Senator Sir John Keane, reads:—

Section 3, line 31. To delete the words " structurally suited " and to substitute therefor the words " constructed as may be prescribed."

I regard this as important. As I read the Statute, it is left entirely to the Inspector, without any previous prescription or limitation from the Minister, or any regulation, to decide whether a premises is structurally suited or not, and he can order as he likes any change to be made. I think that is altogether too wide. The Minister should broadly prescribe the conditions that the premises should fulfil, and within those limits the Inspector should act.

This particular section deals with all premises where butter is manufactured for sale, whether in the farm, the creamery, the separating stations, and so on. It would be difficult to lay down beforehand, even generally, any regulations as to the structural condition of the premises. So far as this would be put into operation, what must happen in practice is that an Inspector will go through the country and he will enter a big dairy supplying one of the big butter factories. He may find that the roof is leaking, and that the butter is dirty. That is reported to the Secretary and there is a general discussion in the Department about it. It is agreed already without regulation that notice must be given about the roof needing repair.

But that is more repair work than structural.

It is, but would it not cover the case?

Senator Sir John Keane, I think, has in mind a small farm-yard where an order would be given to the farmer to reconstruct his cowshed or the place where he would milk his cows.

Quite a proportion of milk—I am not prepared to say the proportion—is made into butter in kitchens and in sculleries. There is a large percentage made that way. Are you going to give an Inspector power to go into a place and, on his own, prescribe what conditions the premises should be in?

For any Government to try and prescribe what particular type of house or kitchen you should have, would be an impossibility. I cannot see how a Government could, for instance, prescribe the number of chairs or utensils required. Senator Sir John Keane suggests something in the nature of provision being made by the Government so that every house in the country would be a sort of standard house.

If we had it prescribed that no butter could be made in a kitchen or a scullery where other work was taking place, we would know where we are.

You mean no butter should be made there for sale, because that is what it comes to.

But that is what is going on now.

Oh, no; it is only going on to a very small extent.

I would appeal to my colleagues here to bear me out when I say that a large amount of butter coming from the small farmers is made in kitchens and small premises.

Kitchens, certainly.

In many of those places chickens may go in and out, food is being prepared, and bread is being baked.

In the majority of instances where butter is made by the small farmers, that is the case.

What we are dealing with actually means the structural condition of the house and not repairs.

In many cases those places may not be properly ventilated. The roof might be too low, perhaps, and the Inspector might say: " I will order you to put on a new roof."

I think that the manner in which the premises shall be structurally suited should be prescribed.

There should be certain limitations under which the Inspector will act.

The place where the butter is made really does the most harm. Could not certain conditions be prescribed?

Unless some powers are given. I do not think that we will get the alterations desired.

Is it not really a question as to whether certain conditions regarding structural suitability should be prescribed?

Senator Sir John Keane is quite right in his description of the place where butter is very often made, and the Minister is right in endeavouring to prevent that, and so minimise the amount of bad butter.

I am afraid it will not be altogether prevented. Of course, if the kitchen is quite suitable, butter may be made there.

I suggest that we might with advantage leave out the words " structurally suited."

Unless the place is structurally suited you will find in many cases butter being made, and in some compartment next to it, without any structural division, there might, perhaps, be something that would contaminate the butter.

Would it improve matters if we said the premises can be " physically suited "?

I am quite willing to agree to the word " physically."

I do not know whether the Minister could get, with regard to structural conditions in farmhouses, another form of words, as distinct from the structural condition of creameries and butter factories. Perhaps you would have another form of words to cover farms? It would be quite impossible to order all kitchens to be reconstructed if they are not at the moment suitable. If such a condition were to be enforced the Bill would be one that could not be worked.

If existing premises were not suitable, perhaps a small building of galvanised iron could be prescribed?

You will find that many farmers would not be prepared to spend £10 or £15.

Then, again, galvanised iron might not be so suitable.

Of course, there is no provision made for loans for erections of that sort.

There is no such intention. I may say that 75 per cent. of the kitchens of the ordinary farmhouses in the country are quite suitable, and 85 or 90 per cent. of the kitchens of those farmers who are actually selling butter are quite suitable. This whole thing is merely meant to cover a case that undoubtedly does arise. Butter might be made in a compartment adjoining some other compartment, the conditions in which would have the effect of tainting the butter.

That is why I suggest the word " physically."

I quite agree with the word " physically."

This question is going to arise again on paragraph (d). As regards the Minister's statement, I am not concerned with what the intention is; the powers conferred by statute are what I am concerned about, and how they are administered.

You must take certain powers to deal with a particular case.

My predilection for the word " physically " is that a kitchen or other premises might be structurally suited, but not physically suited, owing to communication with other premises that might not be so wholesome. I think the word " physically " would be a better word.

It is.

This to some extent would be harder on the poorer country people, say, for instance, people in West Kerry. The butter coming from there would be dealt with by expert people and rebranded.

But will you get rid of contamination if it is there originally?

It is not possible.

I would not think so.

Then, for the moment we will keep on the word " physically."

The Committee agreed.

Amendment No. 6 in my name reads as follows:—

Section 3, line 47. To delete the words " the premises shall be provided with " and to substitute there for the words " there shall be available."

Unless a place is provided with a piped supply of water, everybody knows the conditions that exist in the country. Under existing conditions in many places it would be quite impossible to have a supply provided, such as is suggested in the bill. What do the words " shall be provided " mean. We would like to know what is in the mind of the Government in connection with this section. Would it not be sufficient if water could be brought near the premises, say, about half a mile away, and which could be fetched as it is required?

Might I suggest this is as an alternative—" there shall be available such adequate supply of good and wholesome water as may from time to time be reasonably necessary."

But that is actually in my amendment. My amendment is in those very words.

Pardon me; I had not seen that just at the moment.

In many cases the water supply is obtained from pumps situated in the farm-yards. In some cases it is quite possible that near those pumps would be manure pits, and that might affect the water supply.

In the case of many farmyards in the country where they have pumps, they have also manure pits. There is no question at all that in very few cases does the manure pit ever affect the purity of the water supply. If we had to make a regulation that there should be no manure pit in a yard where there would be a pump, that regulation would affect a great many farmers. There is no necessity for it, because the water is always good, even if the manure pit is 30 or 40 yards away.

Amendment No.7 reads as follows:—" To delete sub-paragraph (f)." I do not press this amendment very strongly. It is not necessary, really, because the matter of registered premises is already covered by another part of the Bill. The Minister has power to prescribe plant, etc.; he is not taking power for farms.

This part of the Bill applies not only to farmers, but to registered premises as well, and it is mainly in regard to one specific thing, namely, cleanliness and order. We want to bring all under one section of the Act. That is a drafting reason, but nevertheless, I think it is sound.

I will not press the amendment.

Might I suggest that the section, if re-drafted, would be a better section? Reading it as it stands, it seems very awkward. The section down to paragraph (e) includes conditions, and in my opinion paragraph (f) is rather awkward. I suggest that the section should read this way: " On and after the date appointed for the coming into operation of Part I of this Act, all premises in which dairy produce is manufactured for sale (whether such premises are or are not registered under this Act), shall comply with the following conditions . . . ." Then you go on from paragraph (a) to (e) as amended. As sub-section 2, I would have the section read:—" Save as hereinafter excepted. if any premises are registered in any of the registers kept in pursuance of this Act such premises will be equipped with appropriate appliances and utensils, and with such plant and machinery as are required in respect of those premises by or under Part III of this Act." Sub-section 3, I suggest, would read: " If these are not registered such premises shall be provided with such plant and machinery, and any of such appliances and utensils as are requisite for the manufacture of dairy produce of the description manufactured therein."

What premises would come under that second heading?

Butter factories exporting.

Sub-section 4 should, I suggest, read as follows: " Neither of the last two sub-sections shall apply to premises that are situate on a farm and dairy produce is manufactured therein only from the milk of cows belonging to the occupier of the farm." The conditions are called conditions of cleanliness and order. I would submit all that to the draughtsman for consideration.

I will be glad to do that, and I will bring the matter up again on the Report Stage. Before we pass away from this, there are some amendments I would suggest for your consideration. In paragraph (b), line 34, it runs: " the premises and the plant and machinery or the appliances." I would ask you to delete the word " or " and insert the word " and " Then, in line 37, I would also ask you to delete the word " or " and insert instead " and," in the phrase " the milk or cream," and let it read " the milk and cream."